Forest Knowledge Gateway
Forest restoration and integrative management.

The 17 indicators presented in this Deliverable constitute a common framework for monitoring progress towards Integrative Forest Management. They are intended to be applicable across different forest types and geographical contexts; however, their measurement, interpretation and relevance may vary depending on regional ecological conditions, management objectives, data availability and governance frameworks. Therefore, the indicators should be adapted to local and national circumstances, taking into account the specific characteristics and priorities of each Living Lab. They are not intended as a prescriptive or one-size-fits-all management standard, nor should they be interpreted as a certification scheme. Rather, they provide a flexible basis for assessing progress, supporting informed decision-making and facilitating comparability across different contexts. Indicator values and associated targets or thresholds should be interpreted in their respective ecological, socio-economic and policy contexts.

How can forest projects engage citizens, landowners, communities and local decision-makers in meaningful ways?

That was the central question of this workshop which provided a platform to exchange experiences, highlight successful approaches, and openly discuss challenges in stakeholder and citizen engagement. 

This study examines how socio-cultural, provisioning, and regulating/supporting forest values vary across individuals and geographic contexts. It analyses weighted survey responses from 12,460 adults in 12 European countries, spanning five Forest Europe macro-regions, using multilevel models. Most residual variation occurred among respondents, but geographic clustering was stronger for provisioning values: country and macro-region together accounted for 21.22% of residual variation, compared with 2.19% for socio-cultural values and 2.60% for regulating/supporting values. No adjusted macro-regional contrast was statistically clear. The findings show why forest-value domains and differences among individuals, countries, and broader regions should be considered separately in comparative forest research and governance.